Your Rights, Legal Protections & How to Stay Safe in British Columbia
With Good & Bad Examples for Every Recommendation
Covering: Defamation Law | Residential Tenancy Act | Human Rights Code | Landlord Retaliation | Google & Platform Reviews
This guide uses colour-coded examples throughout every section. Whenever you see:
"This is an illustration of a well-written, legally sound review statement."
"This is an illustration of a problematic review statement; do not write this."
Side-by-side comparisons appear throughout to show the difference between acceptable and problematic language in the most direct way possible. Read both sides of every comparison because understanding what NOT to do is just as important as knowing what to do.
Understanding the constitutional and legal protections that underpin your right to write honest reviews of your landlord.
Freedom of expression is guaranteed by section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This includes consumer speech — sharing your genuine experience as a tenant.
The Supreme Court of Canada confirmed in WIC Radio Ltd v Simpson, 2008 SCC 40, that robust commentary on matters of public interest is protected expression. Housing is a matter of public interest.
"During my tenancy at 123 Maple Street, Vancouver, I experienced serious habitability issues. I am sharing this review to help other tenants make an informed decision."
"I am going to destroy this landlord's reputation. I will post everywhere I can until his business is ruined. He will pay for what he did to me."
Defamation is a false statement of fact that damages a person's reputation. Online reviews constitute libel (written defamation). To succeed in a defamation claim, your landlord must prove: (1) you published a statement, (2) it referred to them, and (3) it lowered their reputation in the eyes of a reasonable person.
Truth is an absolute, complete defence. If every factual statement in your review is provably true — supported by photos, texts, logs, and RTB orders — no defamation claim can succeed. Section 2 of the Libel and Slander Act, RSBC 1996, c.263 confirms this.
" I submitted a written repair request for the broken heating system on November 3, 2023. The repair was not completed until December 1, 2023, a 28 day wait. I documented the indoor temperature at below 15°C on six separate days using a digital thermometer with date-stamp photographs."
"This landlord deliberately sabotaged my heating system and has been doing this to tenants for decades. He is a fraudster who has probably hurt hundreds of people. He should be in prison for what he does."
Opinions on matters of public interest are protected, provided: (a) they are clearly opinions, not statements of fact; (b) the underlying facts are true; (c) the matter is of public interest; and (d) an honest person could hold the view. WIC Radio Ltd v Simpson, 2008 SCC 40.
"In my personal opinion, based on my 14-month tenancy, the property was poorly maintained and the management was slow to respond to legitimate concerns."
"This management company is incompetent and dishonest. Everyone who rents here will be ripped off. This is an objective fact."
Grant v Torstar Corp, 2009 SCC 61 established this defence for statements that cannot be fully proven, provided the matter is of public interest and reasonable care was taken. Housing is widely recognized as a public interest matter in BC.
"A neighbour told me that similar maintenance issues had occurred before my tenancy. I cannot verify this independently, but my own experience of a 45-day repair delay for a broken boiler was consistent with that account and is documented in my written log."
"Everyone in the building told me this landlord has a criminal record for fraud and has been doing this for twenty years. This is a well-known fact in the neighbourhood."
The Protection of Public Participation Act, SBC 2019, c. 3, allows a tenant who is sued over their review to apply to have the lawsuit dismissed, where appropriate. If the court finds the claim targets expression on a matter of public interest, the burden shifts to the landlord to justify the lawsuit. If the case is dismissed, the landlord pays your full legal costs.
“SLAPP” stands for Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation. The term generally describes litigation used to silence, punish or discourage someone from speaking or participating in discussion about a matter of public interest.
A SLAPP can be more than an ordinary private lawsuit when court proceedings are used mainly to frighten, punish, or silence someone who has spoken about a matter of legitimate public interest. Freedom of expression includes the right to seek, receive, and share information and ideas. This right is recognized in article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and legally protected by article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ("ICCPR"). The Universal Declaration is an important international declaration, while the ICCPR is a binding international treaty for countries that have joined it.
Canada became a party to the ICCPR in 1976. Under article 2 of the Covenant, Canada must respect and protect the rights it recognizes and provide an effective remedy when those rights are violated. Freedom of expression is not absolute, but article 19(3) permits it to be restricted only in limited circumstances. A restriction must be clearly authorized by law and genuinely necessary to protect another person's rights or reputation, national security, public order, public health, or public morals. The UN Human Rights Committee has also explained that restrictions on expression must be proportionate and must not be broader than necessary. It has called on governments to take effective measures to protect people from attacks intended to silence them for exercising their freedom of expression.
A lawsuit used mainly to intimidate, financially exhaust, or silence someone for speaking about a matter of public interest may therefore conflict with these international human-rights standards. The UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights explains that SLAPPs can undermine freedom of expression, freedom of assembly and association, and the right to participate in public affairs. It also states that governments should not only avoid abusive litigation themselves but should take positive steps to prevent private individuals and businesses from using court proceedings to suppress legitimate public participation. These steps can include anti-SLAPP laws that allow abusive cases to be dismissed early and permit courts to award legal costs or additional damages against parties that use litigation in bad faith.
British Columbia's Protection of Public Participation Act can be understood as a domestic measure that supports Canada's international commitment to protect freedom of expression and meaningful public participation. However, not every defamation claim or lawsuit involving expression is automatically a human-rights violation. The concern arises when the legal system is misused primarily to punish, intimidate, or silence legitimate public-interest expression.
A person who receives a complaint, demand letter or defamation claim after posting an online review should not panic, but should not ignore the situation either. Anti-SLAPP protection is not automatic. The appropriate response depends on how far the dispute has progressed.
The person should first preserve a complete copy of everything that has been published. This includes:
The person should also preserve the evidence underlying the review, including contracts, tenancy records, invoices, repair requests, photographs, inspection reports, payment records, correspondence, and any court or tribunal decision.
The review should then be examined sentence by sentence. The writer should ask:
The writer should avoid responding emotionally or publishing new allegations while the matter is being assessed. Repeating a disputed statement may create an additional publication and may increase the harm alleged by the other party.
A request from a landlord, contractor or business does not automatically mean that the review was unlawful. The writer may have several possible options:
The writer should preserve the original review before making any change. Removing a review from public view does not erase the fact that it was previously published, and it does not necessarily end a possible defamation claim.
A correction can sometimes reduce conflict and demonstrate good faith. However, the writer should obtain legal advice before publishing an apology or admission, particularly where the proposed wording could be interpreted as admitting that the entire review was false.
A cease-and-desist letter or lawyer’s demand letter is serious, but it is not itself a court judgment or court order. It usually sets out the sender’s allegations and demands, which may include:
The recipient should note any response deadline stated in the letter and promptly seek legal advice. The recipient should not assume that every allegation in the letter is correct, but should also avoid sending an angry or improvised response.
A lawyer can assess whether the statements may be protected by defences such as truth, fair comment, qualified privilege or responsible communication on a matter of public interest. The lawyer can also advise whether the safest response is to reject the demand, seek clarification, correct part of the review, negotiate a settlement or prepare for possible litigation.
A Notice of Civil Claim means that a proceeding has been commenced in the Supreme Court of British Columbia. It should never be ignored.
A defendant served with a Notice of Civil Claim in Canada ordinarily has 21 days after service to file and serve a Response to Civil Claim, unless the court orders otherwise. Different periods apply where service occurs outside Canada. The defendant should record the exact date, time and method of service and obtain legal advice immediately.
The defendant should provide the lawyer with:
The defendant should not destroy, alter or conceal relevant evidence. Even material that appears unfavourable may have to be preserved.
A person sued over an online review may have several possible legal options. These can include:
Defending the claim on its merits. The defendant may deny that the statements were defamatory or rely on an available defence. Different defences may apply to different parts of the review.
Applying under B.C.’s anti-SLAPP legislation. If the lawsuit arises from expression relating to a matter of public interest, the defendant may apply under section 4 of the Protection of Public Participation Act to have the proceeding dismissed.
Negotiating a settlement. The parties may agree on revised wording, removal of particular statements, publication of an update, a correction or apology, discontinuance of the lawsuit, payment or waiver of costs, or mutual promises concerning future publications.
Making a formal offer to settle. A lawyer may recommend a formal settlement offer that can affect the eventual determination of legal costs.
Seeking other remedies. Where the landlord has also retaliated through an eviction notice, interference with services, improper entry or another tenancy-related action, the tenant may need to pursue a separate remedy through the Residential Tenancy Branch.
A person may defend the claim, prepare an anti-SLAPP application and remain open to a reasonable settlement at the same time.
The defendant must first show that the lawsuit arises from expression made by the defendant and that the expression relates to a matter of public interest.
If that threshold is met, the landlord or business must satisfy the court that there are grounds to believe:
Section 9 states that an application may be made at any time after the proceeding has commenced and must be heard as soon as practicable. A defendant should nevertheless act promptly because separate court deadlines apply.
Once the defendant serves the anti-SLAPP application, the parties generally may not take further steps in the underlying lawsuit until the application and any appeal have been finally resolved. An application for an injunction is an exception.
The defendant’s evidence may include:
If the court grants the application, the proceeding is dismissed.
The successful applicant is generally entitled to costs of both the anti-SLAPP application and the proceeding on a full-indemnity basis, unless the court considers that result inappropriate in the circumstances. Full-indemnity costs provide strong protection, but they should not be described as an automatic guarantee that every dollar charged by the applicant’s lawyer will be reimbursed.
The court may also award damages against the plaintiff if it finds that the proceeding was brought in bad faith or for an improper purpose. Such damages are discretionary and require an appropriate factual basis; they do not follow automatically whenever a lawsuit is dismissed.
A failed anti-SLAPP application does not mean that the defendant has been found liable for defamation.
It ordinarily means that the lawsuit has survived the preliminary anti-SLAPP process and may continue. The defendant may still:
If the anti-SLAPP application is refused, the plaintiff is not automatically entitled to costs of the application. Section 7 provides that costs may be awarded to the plaintiff only where the court considers an award appropriate in the circumstances.
Because continued litigation can be expensive and time-consuming, the defendant and lawyer should reassess the evidence, likely costs, possible settlement terms and litigation risks after the anti-SLAPP decision.
A defamation lawsuit and a residential-tenancy dispute are separate legal matters.
If a landlord responds to a review by issuing an eviction notice, withholding services, refusing repairs, entering the rental unit improperly, threatening the tenant or interfering with the tenancy, the tenant may have separate rights under the Residential Tenancy Act.
The tenant should preserve evidence of the retaliatory conduct and immediately check the deadline for challenging any eviction notice. RTB deadlines vary according to the kind of notice and may be very short.
Priya posted a Google review about her landlord's failure to fix mould for 11 weeks. She referenced her RTB complaint outcome. The landlord's lawyer sent a cease-and-desist letter and then filed a defamation claim in BC Supreme Court.
Priya should immediately preserve screenshots of the original review and any responses posted by the landlord, together with her repair requests, photographs, correspondence, tenancy records, and the RTB decision. She should obtain legal advice before editing or deleting the review and should avoid publishing further allegations while the matter is being assessed.
She should promptly contact TRAC at 1-800-665-1185 for tenancy-related legal information and referrals. If she receives a cease-and-desist letter, a lawyer’s demand letter, or court documents, she should also consult a civil-litigation or defamation lawyer immediately. Court documents should never be ignored, because separate procedural deadlines may apply.
With legal assistance, Priya may apply under the Protection of Public Participation Act, S.B.C. 2019, c. 3, to have all or part of the defamation claim dismissed. Her documented statements about mould, the landlord’s alleged 11-week delay in addressing the problem, and the outcome of the RTB proceeding may support an argument that the review concerns a matter of public interest, particularly if it provides useful information to current or prospective tenants.
Anti-SLAPP protection is not automatic. The court would examine the precise language and overall context of the review, whether the factual allegations are supported by reliable evidence, whether the RTB decision has been described accurately, and whether the review contributes useful information about rental housing rather than merely continuing a private dispute. Priya’s position will generally be stronger if her review is factual, measured, properly documented, and limited to matters relevant to the public.
Why This Works: If the court dismisses the claim under the Anti-SLAPP Act, Priya receives her legal costs from the landlord. If the lawsuit was filed purely to intimidate her, the court may award additional punitive damages against the landlord under s.8 of the Act.
Online reviews and social-media platforms allow people to describe their experiences with businesses, professionals, landlords, contractors and service providers. This kind of expression can help others make informed decisions and may contribute to discussion about matters of legitimate public interest.
However, freedom of expression does not provide an unrestricted right to publish every accusation arising from a personal dispute. A person may have a legitimate grievance but still create legal risk by exaggerating what happened, presenting suspicions as established facts, making unsupported allegations of dishonesty or criminal conduct, or attacking someone personally.
Anti-SLAPP legislation is intended to protect meaningful public participation from lawsuits that unduly restrict expression. It is not automatic immunity from defamation law, nor does it guarantee that every complaint published online will be protected.
The distinction between legitimate consumer expression and the public continuation of a private dispute is now before the Supreme Court of Canada in Cynthia Prescott, et al. v. Benchwood Builders Inc., et al.
Cynthia Prescott and David Green hired Benchwood Builders to renovate their home in Niagara-on-the-Lake, Ontario. Disagreements arose during the project, and Benchwood eventually stopped working on the home.
The homeowners later discovered that Benchwood had posted photographs of the property online. They responded by publishing statements about the company and its owner on social-media platforms. Benchwood Builders and Michael Slaven alleged that the statements were false and damaging and commenced a defamation action against the homeowners.
Prescott and Green brought an anti-SLAPP motion under section 137.1 of Ontario’s Courts of Justice Act. They argued that the lawsuit arose from their expression on a matter of public interest and should be dismissed at an early stage.
The motion judge agreed and dismissed the defamation action. This did not necessarily amount to a final finding that the plaintiffs had acted with an improper motive. Rather, it meant that the motion judge concluded that the statutory requirements for dismissal had been satisfied.
Benchwood and Mr. Slaven appealed. In Benchwood Builders, Inc. v. Prescott, 2025 ONCA 171, the Ontario Court of Appeal unanimously allowed the appeal, set aside the dismissal order and permitted the defamation action to continue.
The person bringing an anti-SLAPP motion must first show that the lawsuit arises from expression relating to a matter of public interest.
The motion judge accepted that online reviews can serve an important public function by communicating information about consumer experiences with businesses and professionals.
The Ontario Court of Appeal took a narrower view of the particular statements in this case. It concluded that the postings reflected an especially bitter private dispute between the homeowners and the contractor. Although some members of the public might have found the dispute interesting, the Court held that public curiosity was not the same as public interest.
In the Court of Appeal’s view, the expression did not sufficiently engage a broader societal concern or the type of public participation the legislation was intended to protect. The fact that the statements were published online and concerned a business did not automatically transform the dispute into a matter of public interest.
When does a person’s private experience with a business become information in which consumers and the broader public have a legitimate interest?
A review may begin with an individual dispute but still communicate information relevant to other consumers. On the other hand, not everything said during a personal disagreement becomes public-interest expression merely because it is placed on Google, Facebook or another public platform.
If the expression relates to a matter of public interest, the plaintiff must establish grounds to believe that the proceeding has substantial merit and that the defendant has no valid defence.
Depending on the circumstances, possible defences in a defamation action may include truth, fair comment, qualified privilege and responsible communication on a matter of public interest.
The Ontario Court of Appeal expressed concern that some courts had treated the “no valid defence” requirement as demanding an open-and-shut case from the plaintiff. Under that interpretation, uncertainty about whether a defence would ultimately succeed could result in the lawsuit being dismissed.
The Court of Appeal rejected such a categorical approach. It held that where it is not immediately clear whether a defence is valid, the court should move to the final public-interest weighing exercise rather than allowing uncertainty about the defence to end the analysis.
This reasoning is one of the issues being reviewed by the Supreme Court. In 1704604 Ontario Ltd. v. Pointes Protection Association, the Supreme Court previously explained that the plaintiff must show grounds to believe that the asserted defences have no real prospect of success. The forthcoming judgment in Prescott may clarify how that requirement should be applied when a review contains several factual allegations and opinions of differing strength.
The final stage of the anti-SLAPP analysis requires the court to weigh two competing public interests:
The Ontario Court of Appeal concluded that the motion judge had not conducted this weighing exercise comprehensively enough. It considered the private origins of the dispute, the nature of the accusations, the personal attacks contained in the publications, the quality of the expression and the alleged harm to the company and its owner.
The Court found that the statements went beyond an ordinary description of dissatisfaction with renovation work. In its view, their connection to the core values underlying freedom of expression and public participation was limited.
The Court therefore concluded that there was no sufficient basis to terminate the defamation action at the preliminary anti-SLAPP stage.
This did not mean that the homeowners were found liable for defamation. It meant that the action was permitted to continue so that the allegations and available defences could be determined through the ordinary litigation process.
On October 23, 2025, the Supreme Court of Canada granted the homeowners leave to appeal. The Court heard the appeal on May 15, 2026 and reserved judgment. As of August 3, 2026, a final judgment has not been released.
The Supreme Court is being asked to consider whether the Ontario Court of Appeal erred by overturning the motion judge’s findings concerning:
The judgment may provide important guidance about the legal treatment of negative consumer reviews and the dividing line between public-interest expression and private disputes.
Although Prescott arose in Ontario, it is highly relevant to British Columbia. Section 4 of B.C.’s Protection of Public Participation Act establishes an anti-SLAPP test that closely resembles the Ontario test.
The Attorney General of British Columbia intervened in the Supreme Court appeal. B.C.’s submissions emphasize that consumer reviews have long been capable of concerning matters of public interest and that courts should distinguish a genuine customer review from the public airing of a private dispute.
Under that approach, a court may consider whether the expression:
A consumer review does not necessarily have to involve a major political or social controversy before it can relate to a matter of public interest. However, the public nature of the platform is not enough by itself. The court must still consider what the expression is really about.
The Supreme Court’s eventual interpretation of Ontario’s legislation is therefore likely to influence the way similar questions are addressed under B.C.’s Act.
A person may receive a complaint from the business, a request to remove the review, a cease-and-desist letter, a demand for an apology or an actual defamation claim.
These communications are not all legally equivalent. A demand letter expresses the sender’s legal position, but it is not a court judgment or court order. A Notice of Civil Claim means that a lawsuit has actually been commenced and should never be ignored.
The person should immediately preserve:
The person should obtain legal advice before altering or deleting the review. The original version must be preserved even if the person later decides to correct, update or remove it.
The person should also avoid publishing new accusations while the matter is being assessed. Repeating a disputed statement may amount to an additional publication and may increase the harm alleged by the plaintiff.
There is no single answer. Depending on the wording and available evidence, the person may decide, with legal advice, to:
Removing a review does not necessarily end an existing defamation claim because the statement may already have been published and read. However, continuing to publish a serious allegation after learning that it may be inaccurate can make the situation worse.
A correction or apology may help resolve a dispute, but it should be carefully worded. A person should avoid unintentionally admitting that an entire review was false when only one detail requires correction.
A useful review should focus on what the reviewer personally observed and can support with evidence.
For example, it is generally safer and more informative to state:
“I requested the repair on January 4 and sent follow-up emails on January 12 and February 2. The repair was completed on March 15.”
“The owner is dishonest and never cares about anyone.”
The first statement identifies specific events that may be verified. The second attacks the person’s character and may imply facts that are difficult to prove.
Before publishing a review, the writer should ask:
Adding “in my opinion” does not automatically protect a defamatory factual allegation. A court considers the substance and overall meaning of the statement, not merely the label attached to it.
The lesson from Prescott is not that consumer reviews are unprotected or that disputes beginning privately can never concern the public interest.
The more careful conclusion is this: A personal experience may become public-interest expression when it communicates accurate and useful information to consumers or the community. However, publishing a grievance online does not automatically protect every allegation, insult or personal attack included in it.
Anti-SLAPP legislation is most likely to protect expression that is factual, documented, measured and genuinely useful to others. Protection becomes less certain where the publication is exaggerated, unsupported, unnecessarily personal or primarily intended to punish the other party.
The Supreme Court of Canada’s forthcoming decision may clarify where that boundary should be drawn. Until then, people should not assume either that every online review is protected or that receiving a legal threat means they must immediately become silent.
Case status: The Supreme Court of Canada heard the appeal in Cynthia Prescott, et al. v. Benchwood Builders Inc., et al., Court File No. 41794, on May 15, 2026. Judgment was reserved and remained pending as of August 3, 2026.
The Residential Tenancy Act, SBC 2002, c.78 (RTA) governs the landlord-tenant relationship in BC. Understanding your landlord's obligations is the foundation of any legally sound review.
| RTA Section | Landlord's Obligation — What Failure Looks Like in a Review |
|---|---|
| s.24 | Must maintain the unit in a state of good repair and fit for habitation. Failure = mould, pest infestation, structural damage, broken heating or plumbing not repaired. |
| s.25 | Must comply with health, safety, and housing standards (BC Building Code). Failure = missing smoke/CO detectors, blocked exits, electrical hazards. |
| s.28 | Must not interfere with tenant's quiet enjoyment of the unit. Failure = repeated interruptions, unnecessary inspections, noise from works. |
| s.29 | Must give at least 24 hours written notice before entry. Failure = entering without notice, entering at unreasonable times. |
| s.38-40 | Cannot charge illegal fees or retain deposits without basis. Failure = charging application fees, keeping deposits without itemized account. |
| s.47 | Can only raise rent once per year by the permitted amount with 3 months notice. Failure = above-limit or short-notice increases. |
| s.48-51 | May only end a tenancy for grounds listed in the Act. Failure = evictions for revenge, discrimination, or fabricated grounds. |
| s.53 | Cannot harass, coerce, threaten, or interfere with a tenant. Failure = intimidating calls, threats after complaints, surveillance. |
"On June 12 and July 4, 2023, the landlord entered my unit without giving the 24-hour written notice required by s.29 of the Residential Tenancy Act. I was present on both occasions. I have a written log of both incidents."
"The landlord broke into my apartment constantly. He would enter whenever he felt like it, completely ignoring all laws. He is a stalker and a criminal who treated me like I had no rights at all."
"A bedroom window was broken on move-in (confirmed in the move-in condition inspection report signed by both parties). I submitted three written repair requests, on March 1, March 15, and April 2, 2024. The window was repaired on May 10, 2024, 10 weeks after my first written notice."
"This landlord never fixes anything. The whole building is falling apart and he just laughs at you when you complain. He does not care if you live or die."
"At the start of my tenancy in September 2022, I was charged a $250 'administrative fee' for processing my rental application. Under s.15 of the Residential Tenancy Act, landlords cannot charge fees not permitted by the Act. Application fees are not a permitted charge. I filed an RTB dispute and was awarded $250 in compensation."
"This landlord is a financial criminal who charges illegal fees for everything. He will bleed you dry with fake charges and there is nothing you can do. He is basically committing fraud every single day."
Every item you document becomes a potential defence if your review is challenged. Here's what to gather and how each piece supports a legally sound review.
Photos and videos should be date-stamped (most phone cameras do this automatically in the metadata). Photograph: mould growth, damaged fixtures, pest evidence, broken appliances, flooded areas, and any conditions you describe in your review.
"Black mould growth was visible in the bathroom ceiling and behind the vanity from the date of my move-in. I photographed the mould on January 20, January 27, February 10, and March 4, 2024. The photographs show progressive growth and are available upon request."
"The entire apartment was covered in deadly black mould from floor to ceiling. The mould was absolutely everywhere and made breathing impossible. The landlord knew it would kill us and did nothing."
Screenshot ALL texts, emails, and letters between you and your landlord. Store these in cloud storage (Google Drive, iCloud) immediately. These records prove what you reported, when you reported it, and how the landlord responded.
"On February 3, 2024, I sent a text message to the landlord notifying him of the pest infestation (I have a screenshot). He replied on February 5 saying he would arrange pest control 'within a week.' As of my vacating the unit on April 30, 2024 — nearly three months later — professional pest control had never been arranged."
"The landlord basically admitted in a text that he never intended to fix anything and that he hates his tenants. He said we were all pathetic and he would do whatever he wanted. I know what he really meant even if the words weren't exactly like that."
Keep a running log: date, how you made the request (text/email/in person), the response you received, and the outcome. This chronology is often the most persuasive part of a tenant's review — specificity signals credibility.
"Repair requests for the broken stove element: written request number 1 (September 4, 2023), no response; request number 2 (September 18), landlord said will look into it; request number 3 (October 2), no response; request number 4 (October 16), landlord said part was ordered; repair completed November 3, 2023, 60 days after initial notice. Throughout this period I could not safely use two of four burners."
"I asked for repairs hundreds of times over many months and the landlord always ignored me and refused to do anything at all. He never once lifted a finger. I have asked so many times I cannot even count."
Regulatory findings are powerful, legally safe review content. They are matters of public record. Reference them accurately.
"A City of Burnaby bylaw inspector attended the property on April 15, 2024 following my complaint. The inspector issued a written order to the landlord to remediate the mould within 30 days. The Residential Tenancy Branch subsequently awarded me $800 in compensation for the landlord's breach of s.24 of the RTA (Order No. XXXXXX, dated June 3, 2024)."
"The city has officially condemned this building and the landlord has been charged with multiple crimes. The courts have already ruled against him multiple times. It is only a matter of time before he goes to jail for what he has done to tenants."
The condition inspection report (CIR) is a legal document. If the landlord signed a CIR acknowledging existing damage, you can accurately state that conditions existed at move-in, strengthening a review about damage deposit disputes.
"The move-in condition inspection report (signed by both the property manager and me on January 5, 2023) noted pre-existing scuffs on the hallway wall and a stain on the bedroom carpet. The landlord deducted $400 from my damage deposit for these same items on vacating in January 2024, despite the CIR confirming they pre-dated my tenancy. The RTB ordered full return of the deducted amount."
"None of the damage they claim I caused was caused by me. Everything was already like that when I moved in. The landlord is a liar and a thief who fabricated all the damage and made everything up to steal my deposit."
Every key recommendation with a clear explanation, a good example demonstrating the principle, and a contrasting bad example showing what to avoid.
Always open your review by establishing who you are as a tenant: the property address, the period of your tenancy, and the nature of your review. This grounds everything that follows in credible personal experience.
"I rented a one-bedroom suite at 456 Oak Avenue, Kelowna, BC from May 1, 2022 to April 30, 2023. This review reflects my personal experience during that 12-month tenancy."
"I rented from this terrible person and had the worst experience of my life. All tenants should know what kind of monster this person is."
Specific dates, quantities, and measurable facts make your review credible and legally defensible. They demonstrate that you are drawing on documented experience, not generalizing from emotion.
" The hot water heater failed on February 14, 2024, Valentine's Day, easy to remember. I notified the landlord by text the same day. Cold water was restored on February 17 but hot water was not restored until February 24, 10 days without hot water."
"We went weeks and months without hot water and the landlord just did not care at all. It happened over and over again so many times that I lost count. The situation was absolutely intolerable."
The fair comment defence (WIC Radio v Simpson, 2008 SCC 40) protects opinions but only when they are recognizable as opinions. Use framing language that signals to readers that you are expressing your personal view.
Reviews grounded in 'I' statements — what you personally saw, heard, experienced, and documented — are both more credible and legally safer than broad generalizations about the landlord's character.
"During my tenancy I personally experienced: two instances of the landlord entering without notice (I was home both times); one above-guideline rent increase for which I received only 6 weeks notice rather than the required 3 months; and an unresolved pest complaint that I had reported in writing on three occasions."
"Everyone who has ever rented from this landlord has suffered the same abuse. All the current tenants are terrified of him and none of them dare to complain. He has harmed every single person who has ever lived here and continues to do so right now."
If you have obtained a Residential Tenancy Branch order, bylaw inspection report, or court judgment, reference it accurately. These are matters of public record and their inclusion dramatically strengthens the credibility and legal defensibility of your review.
"I filed a dispute with the Residential Tenancy Branch regarding the return of my damage deposit. The RTB arbitrator found in my favour and ordered the landlord to return my full $1,000 deposit plus $200 in additional compensation for failing to provide a written statement of deductions within the 15-day period required by s.38 of the Residential Tenancy Act."
"The RTB has already found this landlord guilty of multiple crimes and ordered him to pay out hundreds of thousands of dollars to former tenants. The city has also condemned the building and is about to shut the whole operation down."
The physical state of the property — heating, plumbing, structure, cleanliness at move-in, pest control, exterior — is entirely appropriate review content. These conditions are observable and documentable.
"At move-in, the carpets had visible staining (noted in the condition inspection report). The kitchen exhaust fan was non-functional (I reported this in writing within the first week).The building's common laundry room frequently had machines out of order, on three separate weeks no working dryers were available. I found mouse droppings in two kitchen cupboards within the first month."
"This building is literally a condemned health hazard. It is the most disgusting place any human being has ever been forced to live. The conditions are so bad that they should be illegal and the landlord should be prosecuted for forcing people to live there."
A calm, professional tone signals to readers, and to courts, that your review is based on facts rather than emotion. The most persuasive negative reviews are written as if by a careful, credible witness, not an angry ex-tenant.
"I am writing this review to provide factual information to prospective tenants. My 18-month tenancy involved multiple unresolved maintenance issues, two instances of entry without required notice, and a deposit dispute that ultimately required RTB resolution. I have documentation for each of these matters. I would encourage any prospective tenant to review their rights under the Residential Tenancy Act before signing a lease at this property."
"STAY AWAY FROM THIS SCUMBAG LANDLORD!!! He is the most disgusting excuse for a human being I have ever had the misfortune of dealing with. He is pure evil and I want everyone to know what kind of monster he is. WORST EXPERIENCE OF MY LIFE!!!"
Ending your review with practical advice for prospective tenants demonstrates that your purpose is to inform rather than to harm. This framing supports your fair comment defence and makes the review genuinely useful.
"If you are considering renting at this property, I would strongly recommend: (1) completing a thorough move-in condition inspection and keeping a copy; (2) sending all maintenance requests in writing and keeping records; (3) reading sections 24, 28, and 29 of the Residential Tenancy Act before signing your lease; (4) contacting TRAC at 1-800-665-1185 if you have questions about your rights."
"Do NOT rent here under any circumstances. Just run away and do not look back. Tell all your friends and family to avoid this landlord at all costs. You have been warned. Do not say I did not tell you."
Landlords can and do respond to Google Reviews. How you respond to their reply is as important as your original review. Maintain the same factual, professional tone. If their reply contains a factual inaccuracy, correct it briefly and cite your evidence.
"Thank you for your response. I note that you state repairs were completed 'within a reasonable time.' For the record, my written repair log shows that the broken furnace was reported on November 3, 2023 and repaired on December 1, 2023, a period of 28 days. I have documentation supporting this timeline and remain open to discussing this through the RTB if necessary."
"What an absolute joke of a response! You are a LIAR and everyone can see it! I cannot believe you have the audacity to reply to my review with more lies! Do not believe anything this person says! They are a fraud!"
Take a screenshot of your review immediately after posting, showing the date, the platform, and the full text. If the landlord later claims your review said something it did not, or if the platform removes it, you have a record.
"After I posted my review, I took a full-screen screenshot on my phone (automatically date-stamped) and also emailed it to myself. This created a clear record of exactly what I wrote and when, in case the landlord challenged the content or the platform removed the review for any reason."
"I posted my review and did not save a copy. When the landlord sent a cease-and-desist letter claiming I had said he was a criminal, I could not remember exactly what I had written and could not prove what the original review contained."
Each prohibition is accompanied by an explanation of why it is dangerous, a concrete bad example, and a good example showing how to convey the same concern safely.
This is the most critical rule. A false statement of fact that damages the landlord's reputation is defamatory regardless of your intent. Before including any factual claim, ask: Can I prove this with documentation? If the answer is no — do not include it.
"I found out that this landlord has a criminal record for fraud going back 20 years. He is using his rental properties as part of a money-laundering operation. Multiple people have told me he has done this to hundreds of tenants. This is a fact."
"My security deposit of $1,200 was not returned within the 15-day period required by s.38 of the Residential Tenancy Act. No written statement of deductions was ever provided. I filed an RTB dispute. The arbitrator ordered full return of the deposit. I do not make any allegation about the landlord's general character, I describe only my documented experience."
Language that threatens or intimidates can constitute criminal harassment under s.264 of the Criminal Code of Canada, regardless of the legitimate grievances that motivated it. It also completely destroys your legal credibility.
"I know where you live and I am going to make your life a living hell. Watch your back. I am going to make sure every person in this city knows what you did. You will regret the day you decided to mess with me. This is only the beginning."
"My experience with this landlord was deeply upsetting. I have exercised my rights under the Residential Tenancy Act by filing an RTB dispute, and I am sharing this review to ensure other tenants have access to accurate information about this property. I encourage anyone with similar experiences to contact TRAC at 1-800-665-1185."
Publishing private personal information — home address, personal phone number, financial details, medical or family information — implicates the Privacy Act, RSBC 1996, c.373 and the Personal Information Protection Act, SBC 2003, c.63. It can also result in your review being removed.
"The landlord lives at 789 Private Road, Richmond. His cell number is 604-XXX-XXXX. I know he has financial problems because he told me his mortgage was in arrears. His wife left him last year which is probably why he takes his anger out on tenants."
"The property is located at [rental property address], Richmond, BC. My review relates solely to the management of this rental property during my tenancy from January 2023 to December 2023. I make no reference to the landlord's personal life or personal information."
Alleging discrimination on protected grounds under the BC Human Rights Code without being able to prove discriminatory intent is legally dangerous. If you believe you have been discriminated against, the BC Human Rights Tribunal is the appropriate place to make that claim formally.
"This landlord refused to renew my lease because I am of South Asian descent. He is a known racist who will not rent to anyone who is not white. He should be charged with a hate crime for what he did to me and my family."
"My fixed-term lease was not renewed at the end of my tenancy. The landlord provided no written reason. I noticed that after I vacated, the unit was rented to a new tenant. I had concerns about the reason for non-renewal that I have reported to the BC Human Rights Tribunal for investigation. I do not include the details of that complaint in this review."
While you may describe what a landlord communicated to you, directly copy-pasting extensive private messages raises privacy concerns. Describe substance; quote sparingly and only the most relevant phrase.
"[Full 3-page text thread pasted here including the landlord's personal phone number, references to his family situation, and messages unrelated to the tenancy dispute...]"
"When I raised the repair delay in writing, the landlord replied (by text, which I have saved) indicating that the repair was 'not a priority right now' and that I should 'stop nagging.' This response was received approximately 18 days after my initial written repair request."
Asking friends, family, or others with no direct tenancy experience to post reviews may constitute injurious falsehood and violates platform terms of service. Your individual, genuine, first-person review is protected. A coordinated inauthentic campaign is not.
"'Hey everyone in my friend group! I know none of you have rented from this guy but can you all post 1-star Google reviews on his property? Just make something up about a bad experience. I really want to tank his rating as payback.'"
"I understand that other former tenants of this property have had similar experiences. I would encourage any tenant who has a genuine complaint to post their own factual, first-person review based on their own documented experience."
Reviews written while angry are more likely to contain hyperbole, threats, false statements, and language that will harm you legally. Write your factual chronology the day something happens; post your review only after you have calmed down, assembled your evidence, and reviewed your draft.
"I CANNOT BELIEVE THIS. I just got home and the landlord was IN MY APARTMENT without telling me. This is the most disgusting violation of my privacy I have ever experienced. He is a predator and a stalker and I am going to make sure everyone knows. I am going to destroy him."
"On August 14, 2024, I returned home to find that the landlord had entered my unit during the day. I had not received any written notice of entry as required by s.29 of the Residential Tenancy Act. This was the second occurrence in the preceding 60 days. I have documented both incidents in a written log with dates and photographs. I have raised this issue with the landlord in writing and have also filed a complaint with the RTB."
Photos of the landlord themselves, especially taken covertly, can constitute a violation of the Privacy Act, RSBC 1996, c.373 and may be used against you as evidence of harassment. Photos of the property (exterior, common areas, your own unit) are generally fine and often very useful.
"[Review includes a photo of the landlord taken through a window without their knowledge, with text: 'This is what the man who stole my deposit looks like, avoid this person.']"
"I have attached: (1) a photo of the mould in my bathroom taken February 15, 2024; (2) a photo of the broken window latch that I reported in writing on March 1, 2024; and (3) a photo of the pest droppings found in the kitchen cupboard. All photos are date-stamped."
Only write about things you directly experienced or can verify. Repeating what neighbours said, what you read on another website, or what you assume happened based on incomplete information is legally risky.
"A neighbour told me that the landlord has been evicting people illegally for years, that there was a fire caused by his negligence in 2018, and that he was previously convicted of assaulting a tenant. I am passing this on as a warning to others."
"I can only speak to my own tenancy experience from July 2022 to June 2023. I am not able to comment on events or conduct outside that period or outside my direct personal knowledge. My review is based entirely on my own documented experience."
If you receive a cease-and-desist letter threatening defamation, do not panic and delete. Get legal advice first. Your review may be fully protected. Deleting it may undermine your Anti-SLAPP application.
"'I got a scary letter from a lawyer. Even though everything in my review was true and documented, I deleted it immediately without talking to anyone, hoping the problem would go away. Now the landlord is still threatening to sue me and I have lost the evidence of what I posted.'"
"I received a cease-and-desist letter from the landlord's lawyer on September 5, 2024. I did not delete my review. I contacted TRAC (1-800-665-1185) the same day and preserved all my documentation. With legal assistance, I was advised that my review was protected under the fair comment and truth defences, and that BC's Protection of Public Participation Act, SBC 2019, c.3 would allow me to apply to dismiss any lawsuit quickly and recover legal costs."
Full-length, realistic sample reviews for the most common tenant complaint scenarios in BC. Each shows a legally problematic version followed by a legally sound version.
"WORST LANDLORD IN HISTORY. John Smith at Oak Properties refused to fix my heat for months and months. He is a greedy criminal who wants his tenants to freeze to death. He is probably doing this to everyone. He should be in jail. Avoid this slumlord at all costs — he is literally dangerous. I am going to make sure he never rents to anyone again in this city."
"I rented a two-bedroom suite at [property address], Victoria, BC from January 2023 to December 2023. During my tenancy, the central heating system failed completely on November 9, 2023. I notified the landlord by text that evening (screenshot saved). The landlord acknowledged the issue on November 11, stating a technician would attend 'within the week.' No technician attended until November 29 — 20 days after my initial notice. During this period I documented indoor temperatures as low as 13°C using a digital thermometer (photos date-stamped and saved). I incurred $180 in space heater rental costs. I filed an RTB dispute and was awarded $350 in compensation plus reimbursement of my $180 expense. In my personal opinion, the response time was unacceptable and inconsistent with the landlord's obligations under s.24 of the Residential Tenancy Act to maintain the unit in a habitable condition. I would encourage prospective tenants to review the RTB's published records and to ensure all repair requests are submitted in writing."
"This landlord is a thief and a liar who steals deposits from every tenant. She invented fake damage claims to keep my money. She has been running this scam for years and the authorities should shut her down. She made up everything, there was no damage. She is dishonest and belongs in jail."
"My tenancy at [property address], Coquitlam, BC ended on March 31, 2024. I provided 30 days written notice and vacated the unit on the last day of the tenancy. A move-out condition inspection was conducted with the property manager on March 31. Pursuant to s.38 of the Residential Tenancy Act, the landlord was required to return my $1,100 damage deposit within 15 days of the end of the tenancy or provide a written statement of deductions. No deposit was returned and no written statement was provided within the required period. I filed an RTB dispute on April 18, 2024. The RTB arbitrator ordered return of the full $1,100 plus $200 in compensation for failure to comply with the statutory requirements. In my experience, the deposit process required formal RTB intervention rather than being resolved cooperatively as the law requires. I would advise all tenants at this property to complete a thorough move-in and move-out condition inspection and retain all documentation."
"My landlord is a complete stalker who breaks into my apartment whenever he wants. He has zero respect for any laws. He is a dangerous predator who probably films tenants in their homes. Do not rent from this creep under any circumstances, he is mentally disturbed and potentially dangerous."
"During my tenancy at [property address], Surrey, BC from April 2023 to March 2024, the landlord entered my rental unit without providing the 24-hour written notice required by s.29 of the Residential Tenancy Act on four documented occasions: June 8, July 22, September 14, and November 30, 2023. I was present in the unit during the June 8 and September 14 entries. I have a written log of all four incidents. I raised this issue with the landlord in writing on two occasions and received acknowledgment that entry had occurred but no written notice was thereafter provided for subsequent entries. I filed an RTB dispute and the arbitrator found in my favour, awarding $500 in compensation for breach of my right to quiet enjoyment under s.28 of the RTA. In my view, the landlord consistently failed to comply with the entry notice requirements of the Act throughout my tenancy."
"This apartment is absolutely infested with deadly black mould and rats. The mould will kill you. This landlord knows the building is making people sick and does not care because he hates his tenants. The whole building should be condemned and demolished. Any government inspector who has not shut this building down is also corrupt."
"I rented a one-bedroom suite at [property address], Burnaby, BC from January 2024 to June 2024. Within the first two weeks I observed what appeared to be mould growth on the bathroom ceiling and behind the bathroom vanity. I submitted a written repair request with photographs on January 19, 2024. A second written request followed on February 2. A third request was sent on February 20. On February 25, a handyman attended and applied paint over the mould. The visible mould recurred within three weeks. Professional remediation was not performed. Additionally, I found rodent droppings in three kitchen cupboards and reported this in writing on March 7. Pest control attended on March 28 and applied bait traps. I contacted the City of Burnaby bylaw department on April 10 due to the ongoing mould issue. A bylaw inspector attended on April 22 and issued an order to the landlord to remediate the mould by May 22. I subsequently filed an RTB dispute and was awarded $900 in compensation (Order dated June 18, 2024). In my personal view, the habitability of this unit fell below the standard required by s.24 of the Residential Tenancy Act."
"I filed a complaint against my landlord and three days later he tried to illegally evict me. He is clearly retaliating against me illegally. This is probably a crime and he should be prosecuted. He has done this to other tenants before and the RTB always lets him get away with it because the system is corrupt."
"On September 2, 2023, I filed an RTB dispute regarding an unlawful rent increase. On September 8, 2023 (six days later) I received a Two-Month Notice to End Tenancy (RTB Form 32) stating the landlord required the unit for personal occupancy. I disputed the notice at the RTB within the required 30-day period. At the RTB hearing, evidence established that the landlord had listed the unit for rent at a higher price within 45 days of my vacating it. The RTB arbitrator found that the notice was issued in bad faith and awarded me compensation equal to 12 months of my rent, pursuant to s.51(3) of the Residential Tenancy Act. In my view, the close timing between my RTB complaint and the eviction notice, and the subsequent re-renting of the unit, were consistent with a retaliatory rather than a genuine personal occupancy purpose."
"My landlord is a psychopath who terrorized me every single day. He stalked me, threatened me, and made my life a living hell. He is mentally ill and dangerous and should be locked up. He is basically a criminal. Everyone in the building is afraid of him and he does whatever he wants with no consequences."
" During my tenancy at property address, Abbotsford, BC from June 2022 to May 2023, I received repeated after hours phone calls from the landlord, often after 10 pm on weeknights. I documented 14 such calls between August and November 2022 with dates and times in a contemporaneous written log. On three occasions the landlord attended the property and knocked on my door without prior notice outside of normal business hours. When I asked the landlord to communicate in writing, he declined. I also received a text message on October 3, 2022 that I interpreted as implicitly threatening my tenancy if I continued to raise repair complaints. I have a screenshot of this message. I raised the issue of after-hours communication with the landlord by email on November 15, 2022. The conduct continued. I filed an RTB application for breach of quiet enjoyment and the matter was resolved by agreement. In my personal opinion, the frequency and timing of the landlord's contact was unreasonable and inconsistent with normal tenancy management practices."
"This crooked landlord charged me for damage that was already there when I moved in. She completely lied on the inspection report and then tried to steal my money for things I never did. She is a fraud artist who has definitely done this to everyone who has ever rented from her."
"At move-in on August 1, 2022, I completed a condition inspection report with the property manager. The report documented: a crack in the kitchen tile (item 4 on the CIR), a stain on the master bedroom carpet (item 7), and scuff marks along the hallway baseboard (item 9). Both parties signed the CIR on August 1, 2022. On vacating August 1, 2023, the landlord's itemized statement of deductions included $175 for the kitchen tile crack, $300 for carpet staining, and $90 for baseboard scuffs, all three of which had been noted on the signed CIR one year earlier as pre-existing. The RTB arbitrator found that these were pre-existing conditions and could not be attributed to the tenant, ordering full return of the deducted amounts plus $150 in additional compensation."
"This greedy landlord illegally raised my rent by a massive amount because he is obsessed with money and does not care about his tenants at all. He is definitely breaking the law and has probably been committing rent fraud for years. He should be fined millions of dollars."
"In October 2023, I received a rent increase notice from my landlord. The increase was 7.5%, although the permitted annual increase for 2023 under BC Reg 44/2018 was 2%. Additionally, I had received a 2% rent increase in January 2023. The two increases within 12 months were inconsistent with the one-increase-per-12-months requirement of s.42 of the Residential Tenancy Act. I filed an RTB dispute on November 1, 2023. The arbitrator found the October 2023 increase to be unlawful and directed that it not take effect. I am not a lawyer and cannot characterize the landlord's intention in issuing this notice, but I can state the factual outcome of the RTB proceeding."
Retaliation, adverse action taken by a landlord in response to a tenant exercising their legal rights, including posting a review, is prohibited under multiple provisions of the Residential Tenancy Act, SBC 2002, c 78. Recognizing and responding to retaliation correctly is critical.
A Two-Month Notice issued shortly after you post a review or file an RTB complaint is a classic retaliation pattern. Under s.57 of the RTA, you have 30 days to dispute it at the RTB.
" Timeline of events, October 1, 2023, I posted a Google review of my landlord describing delayed repairs documented above; October 5, 2023, I received a Two Month Notice to End Tenancy citing landlord's personal occupancy (RTB Form 32); October 12, 2023, I filed a dispute application with the RTB. February 14, 2024, the unit was listed for rent on Craigslist at $400 per month above my previous rent. The arbitrator found the notice was issued in bad faith and awarded me 12 months' rent compensation under s.51(3) RTA. I am sharing this timeline to assist other tenants who may face similar circumstances."
"My landlord tried to illegally evict me because I wrote a Google review. So I immediately posted more negative reviews on every website I could find. I also told everyone in the building what he did and organized everyone to complain to the city about every possible thing wrong with the building all at once to get revenge."
"I filed an RTB complaint on March 15, 2024. On April 1, 2024 (17 days later) I received a rent increase notice for 8.5% effective July 1, 2024. The permitted annual increase for 2024 under BC Regulation 44/2018 was 3.5%. I had already received a 3.5% increase effective January 1, 2024, making a second increase within the same 12-month period unlawful under s.42 of the RTA. I filed a second RTB dispute regarding the increase on April 15, 2024, noting the timing relative to my March 15 complaint."
"My landlord raised my rent illegally after I filed a complaint. So I just stopped paying my rent to protest. Two can play at that game. He can't do this to me and I'm not going to follow his rules if he doesn't follow the law."
"On November 3, 2024, I received a letter from a lawyer on behalf of my landlord demanding that I remove my Google review within 7 days or face a defamation lawsuit. I did not remove my review. I contacted TRAC that same day. I preserved all documentation including: a screenshot of my review with its timestamp, all photographs and repair logs that supported my factual statements, and the RTB order I had referenced. On the advice of a legal professional, I determined that my review was protected under the truth and fair comment defences and that the Protection of Public Participation Act, SBC 2019, c.3 would be available to me if a lawsuit was filed."
"I got a lawyer's letter about my review. I panicked and deleted it the same day even though everything I wrote was true. I thought if I deleted it the problem would go away. Now the landlord is still threatening to sue me for what I originally wrote, and I no longer have a copy of the review to show what it actually said."
Best practices for writing reviews on specific platforms — Google, Yelp, and dedicated rental platforms.
Highly visible, indexed in search results. Google protects genuine negative reviews but will remove reviews violating its policies (spam, personal information, threats).
Yelp's review filter may hide reviews from new accounts. Use an established account and write a genuine, first-person review that demonstrates direct experience.
Dedicated rental review platforms (RentSeeker, Apartment Ratings) allow longer, more detailed reviews and are often consulted by prospective tenants actively searching for housing.
"I rented at this property from Jan 2023 - Dec 2023. Issues experienced: (1) Furnace failed Nov 9, repaired Nov 29 (20 days). RTB awarded $350 compensation. (2) Entry without required 24-hr notice on 2 occasions (June and September). (3) Damage deposit partially withheld without the written statement of deductions required by s.38 RTA, and RTB ordered return. Documentation exists for all claims. In my personal opinion, the property was poorly managed. Prospective tenants should read the RTA and keep all correspondence in writing."
"John Smith, 789 Private Drive, Richmond — this man is a CRIMINAL and a STALKER! Here is his personal phone number: 604-XXX-XXXX. Do NOT let this man near your family. He is DANGEROUS and should be ARRESTED. I am going to post this everywhere until he is stopped."
"My experience at this rental property in North Vancouver (May 2022 - April 2023): I moved in on May 1. The bathroom had visible mould on day one, as documented in the move in inspection report. By September, after three written repair requests, remediation had still not occurred. The City of North Vancouver bylaw office issued an order to the landlord in October 2022 after my complaint. That's a public record. The landlord also entered my unit twice without the 24-hour notice required by BC's Residential Tenancy Act. I filed an RTB complaint and was compensated. This is my genuine first-person experience and I have documentation for every claim."
"One-star. Bad. My friend told me to leave this review. Avoid this landlord. He is terrible and does everything wrong. Everyone hates renting here."
"Property: [Full address], Vancouver, BC | Tenancy: March 2021 - February 2023 | Unit type: 2-bed, 1-bath | Monthly rent: $1,850. MAINTENANCE: Response times were slow. Average response time for non-emergency written requests: 21 days (based on my logs for 8 repair requests). No request was refused, but delays caused inconvenience and in one case (November 2022 heating failure) required me to purchase portable heaters. The RTB awarded $200 compensation for this delay. ENTRY: Two entries occurred without the required 24-hour written notice (s.29 RTA). Both were raised in writing with the landlord. DEPOSIT: Returned in full within the required 15-day period. SUMMARY: In my experience, the property was adequately maintained but management response times were slower than I would consider acceptable. I would recommend all tenants keep written records of all communications and requests."
Understanding the case law that protects your right to write honest reviews.
The Supreme Court liberalized the fair comment defence, protecting robust opinions on matters of public interest.
"In my personal opinion, based on my documented experience during my 18-month tenancy, the management of this property reflects a consistent pattern of slow maintenance response and inadequate attention to tenant rights. I hold this view based on eight documented maintenance delays, two RTB complaints, and two instances of entry without notice during my tenancy."
"As an objective fact, this landlord is the most dishonest and criminal operator in the entire BC rental market. His misconduct is not an opinion, it is an indisputable truth that he harms every tenant he encounters."
This defence protects statements that cannot be fully proven, provided the matter is of public interest and reasonable care was taken. Housing is a recognized public interest matter.
"A former tenant in the adjacent unit told me that she had experienced similar mould issues during her tenancy. I cannot independently verify this claim and do not include it as established fact. My review is based solely on my own documented experience, which includes a bylaw inspection order and RTB compensation award, both public records. "
"Multiple sources have confirmed to me that this landlord has been defrauding tenants for over a decade and that the authorities are currently investigating him for criminal conduct. This is well-established in the community and I am simply confirming what everyone already knows."
This BC Supreme Court case involved a defamation claim from an online review. The court found that factual claims supported by evidence survived the challenge; unsupported exaggerations did not. The lesson: specific, documented claims are safe — rhetorical embellishments are not.
"The furnace was non-functional for 23 days (November 3 to November 26, 2023). I have the text exchange confirming both the report date and the repair completion date. The RTB awarded $300 compensation for this delay."
"The landlord deliberately broke the furnace on purpose to freeze me out of the apartment because he wanted to re-rent it for more money. He knew what he was doing and did it on purpose. He has done this to many tenants and the whole neighbourhood knows about it."
Marcus posted a Google review describing his landlord's failure to return a damage deposit and his RTB win. The landlord's lawyer filed a defamation claim in BC Supreme Court, seeking $75,000 in damages.
After being served with the lawsuit, Marcus promptly obtained legal advice and applied under section 4 of the Protection of Public Participation Act, S.B.C. 2019, c. 3, to have the defamation claim dismissed. The Act does not impose a specific deadline for bringing an anti-SLAPP application, but separate court deadlines may apply.
Marcus argued that the lawsuit arose from his online review and that the review related to a matter of public interest because it provided information potentially useful to current and prospective tenants. He relied on the RTB order, correspondence, payment records and other documents to support the factual basis of his statements. He also argued that he had valid defences and that the public interest in protecting his expression outweighed the harm alleged by the landlord.
The court agreed that the statutory requirements for dismissal had been met and dismissed the defamation claim. Under section 7, the court awarded Marcus costs of the anti-SLAPP application and the proceeding on a full-indemnity basis. This required the landlord to pay Marcus’s reasonable legal costs as assessed by the court.
The Anti-SLAPP Act is specifically designed to protect reviewers like Marcus. Housing is a recognized matter of public interest. A factually accurate review supported by an RTB order is strong evidence of truth. The financial reversal — the landlord now owes Marcus his legal costs — is a powerful deterrent against using defamation claims to silence legitimate tenant reviews.
Before, during, and after — your step-by-step guide to writing and protecting your review.
| Check This Before Posting | ✔ Good Practice | ✘ Problem |
|---|---|---|
| Can I prove every factual claim? | 'The furnace was unrepaired for 23 days. I have the text records.' | 'The landlord never fixes anything ever.' |
| Are my opinions labelled as opinions? | 'In my personal view, the response was unacceptably slow.' | 'The response time was objectively criminal.' |
| Have I avoided threatening language? | 'I filed an RTB complaint to seek remedy.' | 'I will make sure everyone knows what he did.' |
| Have I excluded private personal info? | 'The property at [rental address], Surrey.' | 'The landlord's home is at [personal address].' |
| Am I writing from personal experience? | 'During my tenancy I personally observed...' | 'Everyone who rents here experiences the same abuse.' |
| Is my tone professional throughout? | 'In my experience, maintenance response was slow.' | 'This slumlord does not care if you live or die!!!' |
| Legislation | Key Sections for Tenant Reviews |
|---|---|
| Residential Tenancy Act, SBC 2002, c.78 | s.24 (repairs), s.28 (quiet enjoyment), s.29 (entry notice), s.38-40 (deposits), s.42 (rent increases), s.47-51 (evictions), s.53 (harassment), s.57 (dispute eviction), s.62 (dispute resolution) |
| BC Human Rights Code, RSBC 1996, c.210 | s.10 (no discrimination in tenancy), s.22 (12-month complaint period) |
| Libel and Slander Act, RSBC 1996, c.263 | s.2 (truth is complete defence to defamation) |
| Protection of Public Participation Act, SBC 2019, c.3 | s.4 (Anti-SLAPP application), s.7 (full legal costs), s.8 (additional damages for bad faith) |
| Privacy Act, RSBC 1996, c.373 | s.1 (tort of violation of privacy — avoid publishing personal info) |
| Personal Information Protection Act, SBC 2003, c.63 | Governs use of personal information — do not publish personal data in reviews |
| Limitation Act, SBC 2012, c.13 | 2-year general limitation period for most civil claims |
| Canadian Charter, s.2(b) | Constitutional guarantee of freedom of expression |
| Criminal Code of Canada, s.264 | Criminal harassment — applies to both landlord and tenant conduct |
Answers to the most common questions about tenant protections, deposits, rent increases, repairs, and more under BC law.
At present, there are no Canada-wide tenant protections. That means tenant legal protections fall under provincial and territorial jurisdiction. In British Columbia (“BC”), tenant rights are found in many places. BC’s government has a specific government branch that deals with Tenant rights — their website can be found here.
Much of the information found in the FAQ answers come directly from this page. Information in the FAQ also comes from reading through BC’s Residential Tenancy Act and other online sources which will be cited and/or hyperlinked on this page.
Unfortunately, not. However, the case of Blackcomb Skiing Enterprises v. U.S.W.A. is worth drawing attention to. In its decision, the BC Labour Relations Board ordered an employer to permit their union organizers to enter employee residences owned by the employer. The purpose of this entrance was door-to-door canvassing. In justifying this, the Board highlighted the value of union organizers and employees being able to make contact with one another both publicly and privately. Among the reason for why private contact is the importance of people being able to make contact with one another away from the view and scrutiny of security guards or supervisors who may report back to the employer.
The fact that this case was about labour organizing and not tenant organizing a real distinction. However, a win grounded in an argument of protecting access rights and the ability to canvass door-to-door in residential buildings could be instructive for tenant organizers. Specifically, if and when landlords attempt to restrict tenant’s ability to organize amongst one another. This decision could lay out an argument to suggest that tenants are entitled to knock on one another’s doors for the purpose of forming or sustaining a tenant union.
No. According to BC’s Tenant Rights page (last updated March 4, 2026), landlords are not permitted to lock you out of your home because that can prevent you from accessing important belongings such as medical, personal identification, money, work tools and so on.
If you are in a situation where you have been locked out, you have options. They include contacting the following:
If your landlord continues to deny your right to enter your unit, you can apply for dispute resolution. This means asking for an Order of Possession and financial compensation. The RTB also have an expedited process to ensure you can schedule a hearing. Click here to begin that process.
No. Even if you stay past your move out date, your landlord must follow strict legal rules in order to have you removed and cannot do this themselves. A landlord cannot remove you, and a landlord cannot take your property without a court order.
Under section 57 (1), a tenant who is refusing to leave the rental unit even when their tenancy has ended is called an overholding tenant. The tenant who is waiting to occupy a rental unit but cannot because of the overholding tenant is called a new tenant.
Under section 57 (2), (3) and (4) of BC’s Residential Tenancy Act, a landlord cannot take possession of a rental unit being occupied by an overholding tenant without a writ of possession under the Supreme Court Civil Rules. In response to having an overholding tenant, a landlord can seek financial compensation to cover the amount of money they have lost in rent from the new tenant.
Another legal issue to be aware of is that if a new tenant decides to sue the landlord being their rental unit is still occupied by the overholding tenant, the landlord can add the overholding tenant as a party (another person being sued) to that proceeding (lawsuit).
In BC, a landlord must present you with a written agreement for your tenancy. If and when a landlord does not present you with a written agreement, standard terms for a tenancy agreement still apply. You can find a standard tenancy agreement for BC here.
An important part of this process is you paying a security deposit. Once you have paid the deposit, you are a tenant, even without a written agreement.
The BC Residential Tenancy Act defines a tenancy agreement as being either written or oral, express or implied (specifically stated or assumed to apply) between a tenant and a landlord. The agreement refers to the tenant taking possession and occupation of the rental unit, as well as permitting a tenant to occupy common and use services and/or facilities offered in the unit’s building.
The BC Residential Tenancy Act defines a security deposit as money paid to a landlord and by a tenant. The purpose of the deposit is to cover the costs if a tenant causes damage to a rental unit that a landlord has to pay to fix. A security deposit is different than a post-dated cheque for rent and a pet damage deposit.
The BC Residential Tenancy Act defines a pet damage deposit as money paid by or on behalf of a tenant and given to a landlord. The purpose of the money is to be used in case damage is caused to a rental unit by the presence of a pet. This is not a security deposit and that is a different and separate payment between a tenant and a landlord.
Under section 17 of the BC Residential Tenancy Act, a landlord can make you pay a security deposit as a condition to you entering into a tenancy agreement and/or as a condition written into your tenancy agreement.
Under section 19 (1) and (2) of the BC Residential Tenancy Act, a landlord cannot make you pay more than 50% of one month’s rent cost as listed under a tenancy agreement. Do not ever agree to pay more than 50% as this is not allowed under law.
If your landlord demands and then accepts more than 50% of your rent as a security deposit, you have the right to ask for money back. This can mean paying less rent to equal out the overpayment or some other way to recover the money you are owed.
Under section 42 (1) (a) and (b) of the BC Residential Tenancy Act, a landlord cannot increase your rent for one year/12 months after the date you first owed rent and if your rent has been previously increased, one year/12 months since the last date it was increased.
Under section 42 (2) of the BC Residential Tenancy Act, if a landlord wants to increase your rent, they must give you 3 months’ notice that they are going to do so. That means you have to be told a minimum of 3 months before the date the increase will be in place.
Under section 43 (1) (a) and (c) of BC’s Residential Tenancy Act, a landlord can increase your rent by an amount that is calculated in line with BC’s Residential Tenancy Regulations, or if you agree to the increase in writing.
Section 43 (2) prevents a tenant from making an application for dispute resolution to fight a rent increase if that rent increase complies with the above conditions.
Section 43 (1) (b) states that a landlord can ask for the director’s approval to increase a tenant’s rent. Section 43 (3) states that a landlord can request the director’s approval to increase the rent by more than the BC Residential Tenancy Regulations allow, a tenant can make an application for dispute resolution and 43 (3) (1) (a) allows a landlord to increase the rent by making an application for dispute resolution.
Under section 43 (5), if a landlord increased your rent more than they are allowed to, you can reduce your rent payment by the amount you are owed due to your landlord’s overcharge or get your money back another way you choose.
Under the BC Residential Tenancy Regulations, everything in sections 22 (1), (2), (3), 23 (1), (2), (3), (4), (5) and 23.1 (1), (2), (3), (4), (5) speak to the many reasons a landlord can increase your rent and the reasons they can use for the increase.
Under section 22.1 (a) of the BC Residential Tenancy Act, even if your tenancy agreement says that a landlord can increase your rent based on another person moving in, this does not apply if the new person is a minor (under 19 years of age).
The BC Residential Tenancy Act defines a fixed term tenancy as having a clear date for when your tenancy ends.
The BC Residential Tenancy Act defines a periodic tenancy as a tenancy that is on week-to-week, month-to-month or other time period clarified in a tenancy agreement. Periodic tenancies can come into effect after a fixed term tenancy agreement has ended (i.e. once your year-long rental agreement ends, the rental agreement states that your tenancy is month-to-month onward).
Section 45 (1) (a) and (b) of the BC Residential Tenancy Act refers to periodic tenancies. You can end your tenancy on a date that is no earlier than one month after your landlord has received notice that you intend to end it.
Rent increase guidelines can be found here.
3%
2.3%
If your landlord includes utilities and similar costs in your rent, they still cannot increase more than the yearly limit. Click here for a helpful rent increase calculator provided by the BC government.
Under section 49.2 (1) (a) of the BC Residential Tenancy Act, a landlord can make an application for dispute resolution and request an order to end your tenancy and take back possession of your rental unit if they intend to act in good faith to renovate or repair the unit and have the required permits and approval to do so.
Under section 49.2 (1) (b), landlords can make you leave if the rental unit needs to be empty for the renovation or repairs to be completed.
Under section 49.2 (1) (c), a landlord must prove that the renovation or repairs are needed to continue being able to use the rental unit or the building which the rental unit is in.
Section 49.2 (1) (d) requires a landlord to prove that the only way to ensure the rental unit is vacant is by ending the tenancy agreement.
Under section 33(1) (a), (b), (c), (i), (ii), (iii), (iv), (v) and (vi) of the BC Residential Tenancy Act, emergency repairs must be urgent, necessary for the health, safety or for preservation or use of the property. Emergency repairs must be made for the following purposes:
Section 32 (2) of the BC Residential Tenancy Act requires you, as the tenant, to ensure the rental unit is reasonably in line with health, cleanliness and sanitation standards.
Section 32 (3) states that as a tenant, you are responsible for repairing damage to the rental unit or common areas that are caused by your actions or neglect. You are also responsible for repairing damage caused by someone you have into the building or your rental unit.
Section 32 (4) makes clear that you are not required to repair reasonable wear and tear damage.
Section 32 (1) (a) and (b) of the BC Residential Tenancy Act require your landlord to keep the rental unit up to code with health, safety and housing standards required by law and to ensure that the rental unit is appropriate for you to live in (with consideration for the age, character and location of that rental unit).
Under section 58 (1) (a) and (b) of the BC Residential Tenancy Act, you can make an application to the director for dispute resolution on issues including rights, obligations and prohibition under the Act, right and obligations under the terms of your tenancy agreement.
The director is defined under the BC Residential Tenancy Act as the person who is appointed as the director under section 8. Section 8 notes that director must be appointed in accordance with the BC Public Service Act.
Section 9 (1) states that, among many things, the director’s work includes administering and managing all issues and people appointed and hired under the Act.
Section 9 (5) requires the director to provide information to tenants and landlords about their rights and obligations under the Act.
Free legal advice on tenancy and review issues.
Coverage for serious RTB disputes and some human rights matters.
Free and low-cost legal services.
Plain-language BC tenant law guides.
File disputes, access forms, and read published decisions.
File discrimination complaints against landlords.
First 30-minute consultation for $25.